Well, it was a dumb lawsuit fueled by emotion and bad advice from the Brady Campaign
Aurora theater victim’s family may pay $280,000 in Lucky Gunner lawsuit
A federal judge ordered the parents of a Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting victim to pay court costs and attorney fees as a result of a lawsuit filed last year, and the defendants in the case say the family owes around a quarter of a million dollars.
Via David Hardy, who notes:
If Brady pays it (they’re the attorneys, and the award is assessed against their client, not themselves) that’d be about 10% of their assets, or 5% of their budget. If they don’t … they’re gonna have some serious problems finding clients for future cases.
April 24th, 2015 at 9:33 am
Heh! Karma’s a bitch.
April 24th, 2015 at 9:49 am
I still want to see a lawsuit against the theater for not protecting people after disarming them.
Whenever there’s a shooting at a gun-free zone, the perpetrators of the crime (the people who posted the sign) should be liable.
April 24th, 2015 at 11:13 am
I agree, veeshir, however no one forced them to go to the theater so the argument is weak and we lose. Required public services like school and DMV etc are different in that you can’t avoid using them without breaking the law, but .gov doesn’t care about your individual safety, really.
The best case for a non-governmental entity would be (here) hospitals. Only one in my area is owned by the .gov, but ALL of them are posted in accordance with local law. I literally can’t choose to go to a medical facility where I can defend myself (or that my visitors can defend themselves). So I get to pick between, say, getting treated for life-threatening injuries sustained in a car accident and avoiding a gun-free zone. Not really much of a choice there.
Interestingly enough, here in TN it’s specifically in the law that posting “no guns allowed” does not limit liability for a business if someone does shoot up the place. So perhaps if something like that were to happen here the victims’ families might have an actual case? IANAL.
April 24th, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Could the theater be sued on a theory of promissory estoppel?
April 26th, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Adding to an advantage of owning a gun safe is; the law immunizes any individual in lawful possession and control of a handgun and uses secure gun storage from a qualified civil liability action. A qualified civil liability action is the criminal or unlawful use of a handgun by a third party if at the time of access the handgun was inoperable by the use of secure gun storage. Thus owning a gun safe would be protecting an individual from state prosecution as it demonstrates responsible gun ownership.To know more visit http://gunsafereviewsnar.com/